When he’s right, he’s right: Yes, the Left is just as, if not more anti-science as “the right.”
Of course, the biggest way in which it is anti-science is in its denial of human nature, and belief in the blank slate.
26 thoughts on “Neil DeGrasse Tyson”
Comments are closed.
The main science Neil DeGrasse Tyson is interested in is the science of enriching and promoting Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He’s Carl “TTAPS” Sagan’s heir.
Rand, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when it comes to the blank slate.
I have always found the left’s obsession with evolution completely at odds with certain beliefs that they hold.
Feminism does not comport with evolution. Refusal to recognize any difference between men and women is a denial of reality. Not only are men and women physically different, but mentally different. Throughout history, women were not “cast down by the patriarchy”, as feminists want to think. Raising children to at least 12 years of age was a full time job and the division of labor was the most efficient means of doing this. Denigrating motherhood is a denial of sociobiology.
Veganism is another insane departure from reality and evolution. One merely needs to study the historical record to see that humans evolved eating meat.
Good points on how evolution has created a significant divergence in how men and women think and act.
“the biggest way in which it is anti-science is in its denial of human nature, and belief in the blank slate.”
Science is a process. A person is not anti-science just because they are skeptical of climate change, or because they are skeptical of the Holocaust, or because they are skeptical of the equality of black people and white people, or because they are skeptical about the ball-shaped nature of the planet. And they are not anti-science if they are skeptical of the opposite points of view. And they are not anti-science if they strongly advocate one position or the opposite position.
They are only anti-science if they are against using the scientific method.
Right?
Yes. As many leftists are.
As most people are. Including you, judging from your blanket rejection of the blank slate hypothesis.
My rejection of it is based on a lifetime of experience, and actual scientific research.
Where have you found success with the Tabula Rasa theory?
Theories are “successful” when , among othet things, they encourage new experiments. Here is one: are you familiar with “visual cliff” experiments? They test for an innate knowledge of heights in babies (even non human babies). Read the Wikipedia entry on “visual cliff” for more. Here is a hypothesis: visual cliff experimental results will be different from past results if we used subjects with embryonic development in free fall.
I’d be shocked if it turns out that way, but it would be fun to find out. One problem with arguments in favor of innate knowledge is that everyone’s embryonic development has certain things in common. To test blank slate arguments, we should change the embryonic environment. Free fall would be a novel difference from the norm.
The “blank slate” theory is not about “innate knowledge.”
It is. But perhaps we are disagreeing because you are thinking of exclusuvely conscious knowledge, while I’m referring to what the mind knows about the world, regardless of whether it is nonconscious. So, for example, a newborn might be said to have knowledge of his mother’s voice, even though the baby presumably is unaware he knows it. More fundamentally, a baby has innate knowledge of how to grasp and sucklw, although, again this is not conscious knowledge.
So, a baby that knows how to grasp isn’t utterly a blank slate. A baby that is not exposed to as many noises in the womb (maybe due to a mom who is mute and works in solitude ) might be a little more of a blank slate than usual.
Theories are “successful” when , among othet things, they encourage new experiments.
Nope. Perhaps a person seeking grants (read taxpayer’s dollars) defines success that way. But a theory requires validation, which means experimentation, but success in validation means the experiment supported the theory. Claiming a different theory and experiment validates another theory is non-scientific idiocy, yet bob, that’s what you just did.
The problem with tabula rasa is you can repeatedly measure the opposite in all people. By any scientific measure it is provably false. This is the essence of Myer-Briggs.
Under the blank slate hypothesis, the new socialist man would have made communism successful. It failed.
Under the blank slate hypothesis, a true Libertarian state wouldn’t need any police or guns because all transactions would be fair and voluntary. Nobody is dumb enough to even try that one.
Under the blank slate hypothesis, looting happens because people must have had a class in looting at some point in their childhood education.
Choosing to follow instinct over the scientific process when it suits is a human quality, not influenced by ideology.
I’m glad to see that you now understand how skepticism in science is vital to its success.
That’s some clever association. One could use other examples like, a person is not anti-science just because they are skeptical of climate change, or because:
They think the Earth is round when others don’t
They think there were megafloods at the end of the last ice age
They think Neanderthals had sex with Homo Sapiens
They think Neanderthals weren’t functionally retarded
It’s a much longer list. There are plenty of more appropriate examples that are closer associations.
They’re anti-science because they’re anti-evidence. They’re just not that into drawing rationale conclusions from objective evidence; they are driven almost exclusively by emotion.
I think the issue is bigger than science and more about human nature. I’m sure everybody has experienced exasperation when trying to convince another of something they are absolutely certain of.
What is it that prevents reason to prevail?
It isn’t the easy answer (they’re just stupid) because often they are anything but. Proof is in the history of people being right that were universally told they were wrong at the time.
So we’re back to human nature? My solution has been to try to always respect those I disagree with… but I’m getting old.
I’m sure everybody has experienced exasperation when trying to convince another of something they are absolutely certain of.
When I was in graduate school I exasperated a few Muslims in exactly this manner.
To convince anybody of anything you have to find common ground. That usually requires some compromise on both sides unless you’re lucky and find some you already share. Those that have been raised so far from the norm (our norm, not theirs) are being done so for the exact purpose of not being persuaded by the infidels.
Those that have been raised so far from the norm (our norm, not theirs) are being done so for the exact purpose of not being persuaded by the infidels.
Of course. What’s your point? My point is that strongly held, personal convictions are not strongly correlated with truth. On any side of any issue you have people with strong personal convictions. Some of them must be wrong. And some of them will be you or me, depressingly more often than we’d like to admit.
To some truth takes a back seat to self interest. In which case, any argument no matter how well formed, fails.
He may not be self aware but NDT just went up a few notches in my book.